m774 is du with 440mm of pen, M774 - SBWiki
m829a2 as seen here M829A2 - SBWiki
(source m829a2 - [M829A1 120mm, APFSDS-T Federation of American Scientists])
3 Likes
In War Thunder, M774 has 428mm of penetration at 100 meters.
And M829A2 has 724mm of penetration at 100 meters.
Lanz-Odermatt is a/are mathematician[s] from Switzerland, and world-renowned.
So no, not inaccurate.
3 Likes
Using 2x is a bit to derivative and to far off to be used reliably. Using Lanz-Odermatt you get different numbers that are closer to what gaijin uses.
1 Like
2x, or / cos 60, is what you use for a 60 degree angle to get the amount of material penetrated.
SB uses the 60 degree angle standard that NATO and even Russia uses for testing rounds.
Which is why I countered with the 60 degree angle pen rather than any other angle.
1 Like
Wikipedia and non official websites aren’t considered surces.
If you ever find sources that gaijin considers to be good enough then make a report in the issues site instead.
60 degree angle does give a 2x straight line material equivalent yes, but that isn’t what the round can penetrate. you can’t just 2x the number and use that as the straight line zero degree penetration capability. there is way more to it than that, otherwise the zero degree number in war thunder would be the same as the you come to using that method, which it isn’t.
as i said, you can’t use that method for penetration/perforation values as it wont be accurate. the ONLY thing that method does is tell you how much material it would equate to in a straight line. which isn’t the same as the round being able to penetrate that much material.
325/cos60 = 650.
325x2 = 650.
60 degrees shares this… this is rather common knowledge on the forums at this stage since it’s been shared so often.
You are not understanding me…
i’m not saying your math is wrong, i’m saying your math can’t be applied to this situation.
Here:
i’m just using these images as an example and not as anything with high degree of accuracy.
The red line is what you are calculating, the green one is the actual penetration done by the round.
red line is direction of travel before impact, green line is round penetration direction as an average during penetration, black is showing distance difference, gray line for reference of thickness before deformity.
These are highly exaugurated but i hope you understand what i’m trying to explain. 2x isn’t correct in this application as the round never actually goes through that amount of material.
SteelBeasts is not a source.
SteelBeasts isn’t really a video game though, but I get your point.
Pretty sure it doesn’t?
Just showing the Google search results page ain’t good enough.
How about you visit that website and search for the penetration values that SteelBeasts claims it contains.
3 Likes
steelbeast got it from an scientific organization
you ALWAYS need to quote the original source in this context. 2nd or 3rd hand accounts wont be enough.
you need to actually look up the information that steelbeasts used and then link to that.
Which is just a guy named “John Pike” claiming things in 1999 without any sort of information about who that guy is, what he does or where he got his information from.
2 Likes
And where info about penetration in this source?
1 Like
So show me where in that source the penetration is listed.
4 Likes
[M829A1 120mm, APFSDS-T
you can view source at the top and its from a organization that tested these ballistics along side the us military’s testing.
I’ve now asked you two times.
You’re still not showing me what I asked you to show me.
I’ll be as direct as I can:
- You claim Abrams ammunition isn’t accurate, and you cite Steel Beasts as a source.
- Someone rightfully tells you Steel Beasts isn’t a valid source.
- You then show us that the Steel Beasts website has a source of it’s own which validates what Steel Beasts claims.
- I then ask you to show where in that source the penetration values that Steel Beasts lists are mentioned.
You refuse to comply.
Nowhere on that page does it cite penetration values.
3 Likes